Wilkey v. State, 450 S.E.2d 846 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
Wilkey v. State, 450 S.E.2d 846 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
30 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Dunson v. State (gactapp, 2005-09-16)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Dunson v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
Wilkey v. State, 215 Ga. App. 354, 355 ( 450 SE2d 846 ) (1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. McElroy (2×)
Haw. · 2004 · confidence medium
Id. at 688 (quoting Wilkey v. State, 215 Ga.App. 354 , 450 S.E.2d 846, 847-48 (1994)) (brackets and ellipsis points omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cobb v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
He therefore did, arguably, put his character in issue or at least raised a matter to be impeached, and the State was allowed to rebut his testimony under the ruling in Jones, supra. Further, by attempting to benefit from evidence indicating past criminal conduct, he waived any right in this case to object to the State’s right to put that evidence in its true context for the jury. [Cit.] Wilkey v. State, 215 Ga. App. 354, 355 ( 450 SE2d 846 ) (1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Braswell v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
Blackburn, P. J., and Barnes, J., concur. 1 Markee v. State, 229 Ga. App. 644, 647 (4) (b) ( 494 SE2d 551 ) (1997). 2 Dixon v. State, 268 Ga. 81, 82 (1) ( 485 SE2d 480 ) (1997). (“Although hands and feet are not considered per se deadly weapons within the meaning of OCGA § 16-5-21 (a) (2), the jury may find them to be so depending on the circumstances surrounding their use, including the extent of the victim’s injuries. [Cit.]”). 3 OCGA § 24-9-20 (b); Scott v. State, 270 Ga. 93, 94 ( 507 SE2d 728 ) (1998). 4 Wilkey v. State, 215 Ga. App. 354, 355 ( 450 SE2d 846 ) (1994). 5 Beasley v. S…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Roman v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
Wilkey v. State, 215 Ga. App. 354, 355 ( 450 SE2d 846 ) (1994).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mitchell v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
Wilkey v. State, 215 Ga. App. 354, 355 ( 450 SE2d 846 ) (1994).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Cosby v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
Williams v. State, 263 Ga. 135, 137 (5) ( 429 SE2d 512 ) (1993); Wilkey v. State, 215 Ga. App. 354, 355 ( 450 SE2d 846 ) (1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Morrison v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
In short, “[w]hen the defendant has put his character in issue or denied a prior crime, the State is entitled to make ‘an unbridled attack on the defendant’s character or credibility by introducing evidence of past wrongdoing[.]’ (Phillips v. State, 171 Ga. App. 827, 831 [, supra] (special concurrence)!!,] cited with approval in [Jones v. State, 257 Ga. 753, 759 ( 363 SE2d 529 )]).” Wilkey v. State, 215 Ga. App. 354, 355 ( 450 SE2d 846 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Davidson v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
McDaniel v. State, 248 Ga. 494 ( 283 SE2d 862 ) (1981).” (Emphasis supplied.) Jones v. State, 257 Ga. 753, 759 ( 363 SE2d 529 ) (1988); see also OCGA § 24-9-64; Wilkey v. State, 215 Ga. App. 354, 355 ( 450 SE2d 846 ) (1994); Mitchell v. State, 193 Ga. App. 214, 217 ( 387 SE2d 425 ) (1989).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gentry v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
Williams v. State, 263 Ga. 135,137 (5) ( 429 SE2d 512 ) (1993); Wilkey v. State, 215 Ga. App. 354, 355 ( 450 SE2d 846 ) (1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Franklin v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
He cannot now complain that the prosecutor followed up on cross-examination.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Brown v. State, 204 Ga. App. 523 ( 420 SE2d 61 ) (1992); Wilkey v. State, 215 Ga. App. 354, 355 ( 450 SE2d 846 ) (1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tweedell v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1995 · confidence medium
“The State, like any other party, has the right to conduct a thorough and sifting cross-examination of a witness as to any material issue.” Wilkey v. State, 215 Ga. App. 354, 355 ( 450 SE2d 846 ) (1994).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Weston v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1995 · confidence medium
“Assuming [Weston] did not, merely by volunteering that he had been incarcerated, put his character ‘in issue’ within the meaning of OCGA § 24-9-20 (b) so as to permit rebuttal by the State, he nevertheless raised an issue which may be fully explored by the State on cross-examination. [Cit.]” Wilkey v. State, 215 Ga. App. 354, 355 ( 450 SE2d 846 ) (1994) (citing Jones, supra).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Brownlee v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
He cannot now complain that the prosecutor followed up on cross-examination. [Cits.]” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Mitchell v. State, 193 Ga. App. 214, 216 (2) ( 387 SE2d 425 ) (1989), quoting Lockett v. State, 188 Ga. App. 645, 646 ( 373 SE2d 768 ) (1988); see also Wilkey v. State, 215 Ga. App. 354 ( 450 SE2d 846 ) (1994); Butts v. State, 193 Ga. App. 824 ( 389 SE2d 395 ) (1989).
Wilkey
v.
the State
A94A2699.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Nov 28, 1994.
450 S.E.2d 846
John R. Emmett, for appellant., Ralph L. Van Pelt, Jr., District Attorney, Melodie S. Bedford, Mary Jane Melton, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.
Birdsong, Blackburn, Ruffin.
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published
Birdsong, Presiding Judge.

Kenneth Ray Wilkey was convicted of aggravated assault, for having brutally beaten his girl friend in a series of incidents occurring over one day. After a pool party at the victim’s mother’s house, Wilkey struck the victim across her face and injured her lip. Wilkey hit the victim again with the back of his hand, causing blood and flesh to fly across the coffee table. After Wilkey left, a woman friend of the victim urged her to leave the house. The victim left with her friend, but they met Wilkey on a roadway at the foot of Lookout Mountain. Wilkey dragged the victim out of her car by the hair of her head and forced her to go with him. In his car, Wilkey punched the victim in the face and bit her on the nose. When he and the victim returned to their home, he pushed her on the bed, choked her, and told her he would rather see her dead than for her to leave. Some of these events may have occurred in Tennessee but most occurred in Georgia.

[*355] Decided November 28, 1994. John R. Emmett, for appellant. Ralph L. Van Pelt, Jr., District Attorney, Melodie S. Bedford, [*356] Mary Jane Melton, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.

[*355] At trial, appellant testified on direct examination that after his arrest, “I was at the Diversion Center in Rome, Georgia, and she would come and see me on visiting days.” On appeal he complains that the trial court, over objection, permitted the prosecution to question him about the reason for his incarceration, which was that he had failed to pay a probation fine. Held:

The trial court did not err in permitting the State to cross-examine appellant about the reason for his incarceration. Assuming appellant did not, merely by volunteering that he had been incarcerated, put his character “in issue” within the meaning of OCGA § 24-9-20 (b) so as to permit rebuttal by the State, he nevertheless raised an issue which may be fully explored by the State on cross-examination. Jones v. State, 257 Ga. 753, 759 (363 SE2d 529). When the defendant has put his character in issue or denied a prior crime, the State is entitled to make “an unbridled attack on the defendant’s character or credibility by introducing evidence of past wrongdoing” (Phillips v. State, 171 Ga. App. 827, 831 (321 SE2d 393) (special concurrence) cited with approval in Jones, supra), but this is not the only instance in which the State may introduce evidence of prior crimes. The State, like any other party, has the right to conduct a thorough and sifting cross-examination of a witness as to any material issue. The State had the right to pursue the specifics of a topic he had introduced. Brown v. State, 204 Ga. App. 523 (420 SE2d 61). Appellant introduced this material issue and the State was entitled to explore it on cross-examination.

Moreover, by this testimony appellant implied that he had not beaten the victim, that she did not hold him responsible for the beatings, or that she bore him no ill will for his beating and remained on good terms with him, to the remarkable point of visiting him when he was jailed. This evidence by him was thus made with the purpose of exonerating himself. He therefore did, arguably, put his character in issue or at least raised a matter to be impeached, and the State was allowed to rebut his testimony under the ruling in Jones, supra. Further, by attempting to benefit from evidence indicating past criminal conduct, he waived any right in this case to object to the State’s right to put that evidence in its true context for the jury. See, similarly, Metheny v. State, 206 Ga. App. 275, 276 (424 SE2d 857).

Judgment affirmed.

Blackburn and Ruffin, JJ., concur.